Top Ten Overrated Films, Part II (warning: this post contains spoilers for certain films)

6. Bowling For Columbine - What can you say about a film that won the Oscar for Best Documentary yet doesn't have a single word of truth in it? Pretty pathetic. I thoroughly despise Michael Moore, not necessarily because of his belief, but because of he manages to simplify everything in terms of good and bad. If you agree with his position, you are good, if you disagree then you are evil. The film itself never has a clear argument, it's all over the place. Michael Moore makes bold statements, but his argument is nowhere to be seen. At first it seems Michael Moore is taking an anti-gun position by ridiculing gun owners and how easy it is to get guns. Yet his argument falls flat when he shows how Canada is just as gun crazy as America, yet practically has no gun related deaths. His sequence about 9/11 backs up the notion guns are not the villains, but people are. After all, there was not one gun was pulled on 9/11, yet thousands of people died. At one point in the movie, he dismissed the idea that Marilyn Manson music violent video games caused the teenagers to shoot their fellow classmates at Columbine. However, later on in the film, he boldly states that violence in the news is responsible for the rise in homicide. According to Moore, teenagers are impressionable and what they see on the news causes them to turn towards violence. However, if the teenagers are as impressionable as Moore states, then wouldn't video games and Marilyn Manson music have the same effect? How can one form of media be harmless, yet another harmful? The greatest irony in the film is that Michael Moore criticize the news for its negative portrayal of American society, yet Moore does the exact same thing in Bowling For Columbine. There are so many things wrong with this "documentary" but it would take hours to write it all down.

7. Fight Club - Why is it so many movies from 1999 were prematurely labeled as "masterpieces" and "classics." People talk about Fight Club as if it were one of the most amazing achievements ever put on film. Yet, for a film that has been praised by so many people, it's filled with huge plot holes and heavy handed moralizing this side of Cecil B. DeMille. The main problem derives from the "twist" that is revealed at the films conclusion, that Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) and the Ed Norton character are one and the same. Tyler is Norton's alter ego, the man he wishes he could be. The problem with this twist is that it makes one look back at earlier segments in the film, thus revealing how very little sense it makes. If were to accept this twist, then Fight Club was started because two men witnessed Norton's character beating the crap out of himself and were compelled to join. Doesn't that seem a bit problematic that a huge army could have its start from a rather idiotic beginning? I think if any one saw a man beating the crap out of himself in an ally, they would be inclined to run away, not ask him, "Hey can I join?" It's a suspension of disbelief I can't buy into, no matter how hard I try. The other problem I have with the film is that it's first hour and forty minutes are devoted to showing just how awful mankind truly is, then in the last forty, Norton comes to the realization that humanity isn't so bad after all. We get a sequence where he mourns over Meat Loaf, trying to explain to every one that Meat Loaf was a true person, not just another faceless soldier in an army. Fight Club has a lot to recommend, the two leads are compelling and there good moments scattered through out, but its about time people stop raving about how wonderful it is.

8. Forrest Gump - How can one hate possibly hate a touching film like Forrest Gump, you might ask? The answer because there's no one character that I can relate to. Forrest is almost too angelic, his mental handicap makes him an innocent in a world that has lost it's innocence. Forrest Gump manages to maintain his goodness, despite all the death, decadence, and other evils that surround him. I'm sorry, but any one could have played Forrest Gump. Tom Hanks some how won an Oscar for talking reeaaaaallly slloooooowwwww, while the other candidates that year were over looked because they played characters that actually had depth to them. He's seen doing remarkable things through out the course of the film, yet no one recognizes him on the park bench. Jenny is supposed to be a sympathetic character, yet she comes off as being a complete whore. It remains to be seen whether she genuinely loves Forrest, or just uses him because she knows he will take her back. Then again, this is a Robert Zemeckis film, therefore she must genuinely love him. If her love was questionable, we might actually have a complicated film on our hands. Instead, we get a life affirming film that makes sure to wring as many tears from us as possible without ever earning them.

9. Dracula (1931) -I'm a huge fan of the Universal monster collection and it is with great reluctance that I include this film on my list, but after seeing Tod Browning's Dracula again, I have come to the conclusion that it is grossly over -rated. This first twenty minutes set in Transylvania are great. The sets are very atmospheric, Bela Lugosi is suitably creep as the count and Dwight Frye is a perfect Renfield, however after this sequence ends, it's all down hill from here. My main problem with Dracula is that it is way too stagy; it often feels like you are watching a photographed stage play. The film plays out in extremely long takes, actors recite their lines, facing the camera like they were performing in front of a live audience. It's an extremely slow moving film, granted most films of that period are slow compared to today's films, but this one really creaks. It's only 75 minutes long, yet it seems like it will never end. It doesn't help that the audience never sees any of Dracula's deeds, only hears about them. It's not a bad film, but it's not the classic many film historians would have you believe it is.

10. The Last Samurai - What could have possibly been an intriguing story about the Japanese feudal culture, and the life of a samurai warrior (Ken Watanabe) gets lost in yet another Tom Cruise star vehicle. Seriously, Tom Cruise undermines any validity this film might have. He's not bad, but his star power undermines everything in the film. In every scene there must be a close up of Tom Cruise. He's not even allowed to die at the films' climactic battle, because that would go against audience expectations. It's hard to get into a story when the filmmaker keeps reminding you that he has a huge star in his film. Look, it's Tom Cruise fighting in a samurai battle, look how great he is? What a performance, he should win an Oscar! Poor Ken Watanabe, he's about the only thing that kept this film from sucking.

Thus ends my top 10 overrated films list. There are plenty of more where those came from, but I would rather focus my time and energy on discussing something else. Thank you!